Nick Clegg claims House of Lords Reform Bill breaches prisoners human right to vote
These notes refer to the House of Lords Reform Bill
as introduced in the House of Commons on 27 June 2012 [Bill 52]
Franchise
272. Clause 6 provides that those who may vote in elections are to be the same electors who may vote in elections to the House of Commons. There are no longer any restrictions on peers voting and members and former members of each House may vote in elections to each House.
273. In 2005 in Hirst v UK (No 2) (2006) 42 EHRR 41 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that the blanket ban on serving prisoners voting in House of Commons elections (in section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983) was incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol 1. A wide margin of appreciation was afforded to the UK but the blanket ban was outside that margin as it was a "blunt instrument" which "strips the convention right to vote to a significant category of persons and does so in a way that is indiscriminate" (para 82).
274. In the case of Greens and MT v UK (App. Nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08) the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights set a six month timeframe for the UK to bring forward legislative proposals to amend the legislation in compliance with the Hirst judgment. The Court later agreed to amend this deadline so that it expired six months after the Grand Chamber judgment in Scoppola v Italy (No. 3) (App. No. 126/05).
275. Judgment in Scoppola was given on 22 May 2012. The Grand Chamber accepted that decisions about disenfranchisement did not need to be taken by a judge in each individual case; they accepted that disenfranchisement could be achieved by legislation; they accepted therefore that such a ban could apply to anyone belonging to the group covered by the legislation; and they accepted that there was nothing objectionable in the Italian system where such a ban applied for the entirety of the sentence (and beyond) for those sentenced to three years imprisonment or more. But they did not depart from the conclusion in Hirst that such a ban would be incompatible as "general automatic and indiscriminate" if it applied to all those sentenced to imprisonment.
276. In Sejdic and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina the Grand Chamber said (at paragraph 40) that it was clear that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 applies to any of a parliament's chambers to be filled through direct elections.
277. Since sentenced prisoners are legally incapable of voting at House of Commons elections under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, they will (under clause 6) be equally incapable of voting at House of Lords elections.
278. For these reasons the Deputy Prime Minister has said that he is unable to sign a statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government wishes Parliament to proceed with the Bill notwithstanding that such a statement of compatibility cannot be made.
279. The Government is considering the issue of prisoners’ voting rights and the implications of the Scoppola judgment for the UK.
No comments:
Post a Comment